Here’s how not to get sued when reviewing online products

Drawing the legal line between critical and libelous online reviews.

Imagine you just purchased a shiny new wireless router from Amazon, only to discover that the product doesn’t work as you anticipated. To vent frustration and perhaps help others avoid the same mistake, you leave a negative product review—but some of your claims ultimately turn out to be incorrect or misleading.

Now the company’s attorneys want to sue you for your "illegal campaign to damage, discredit, defame, and libel” it. Are you going down in flames? Or can you say what you want on the Internet?

As with many areas of law, the answers are nuanced and complicated. Our primer, however, will help you avoid the obvious pitfalls.

Libel law gray area

Last week, we wrote about how lawyers for wireless router manufacturer Mediabridge sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to a redditor who goes by “trevely," threatening to sue him unless he deleted his negative review of one of the company's products on Amazon. The reviewer instead posted the letter to reddit, setting off a firestorm of negative publicity against the company.

Mediabridge has since responded by posting a letter to its Facebook page noting that it did not sue trevely (it just threatened him) and that Amazon had rescinded the company’s selling license because of its tactics. Mediabridge has since deleted its Facebook and Twitter accounts, and most of the above-referenced information has been taken down.

A number of readers responded to our piece by noting that this is a classic case of the Streisand effect and by offering their two cents on the thorny nature of libel law. For instance, commenter mikexcite noted that “libel law is counter-intuitive and full of scary gray areas.”

We agree. And given how much commerce takes place online these days and the importance of online product reviews to help guide shoppers to the right products, we think this topic is ripe for further consideration.

It's not an academic debate, either. There's an increasing frequency of legal quarrels over online product reviews, so would-be reviewers should be aware of possible legal implications of their actions.

For example, such recent litigation has included a suit filed by a dentist against one of his patients after the patient had written a negative review. Then there's the suit involving nasty reviews of a local building contractor left by a Virginia homeowner on Yelp and Angie's List.

Truth is your best defense

The law surrounding defamation, defined as “the action of damaging the good reputation of someone,” aims to strike a delicate balance between freedom of expression and the requirement that citizens be held responsible for abusing that right (i.e., why you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater).

“You can’t guarantee that you won’t get a nasty letter from an aggressive law firm,” Lee Berlik, an attorney who specializes in defamation law, told Ars after reading through the cease-and-desist letter sent to trevely. “But you can certainly take steps to minimize the likelihood of that happening.”

While describing defamation law as somewhat convoluted, Berlik offered up a simple rule of thumb for would-be reviewers. “The big point is that you can’t make stuff up. It’s fairly easy to not get sued as long as you tell the truth," he said. “If you are upset with a company because you don’t like their product and decide to hurt them by making stuff up on a review site, you can get in trouble. But if you have a negative opinion about something and you are acting in good faith in your review, you are protected by the First Amendment.”

Berlik said that in order to satisfy the requirements for a valid defamation action, the suing party has to show that the defendant’s statement is false, that it is defamatory in nature, and that the defendant acted with a certain level of intent. If, for example, a large and well-known company files suit for defamation, Berlik said that “the company must establish ‘actual malice’—that the person knew what he was saying was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth."

Analyzing trevely’s situation—and specifically Mediabridge's claim that trevely wrote, “this is a rebranded $20 router from China”—Berlik explained that if trevely knew his review was a false statement of fact and that he wrote it with the intention of harming the company, then it is likely defamatory.

However, Berlik pointed out that in the text of the review transcribed in the cease-and-desist letter, trevely published a link allegedly showing that the Mediabridge router is the same as the $20 router from a company called Tenda, writing, “The FCC filings for Medialink confirms that it is the same product.” Berlik noted that if Medialink is considered a “public figure,” trevely's citation to the FCC filing likely supports his review, assuming he was acting in good faith.

“If it doesn’t isolate him from liability, it comes very close… Even if this statement is false, it’s unlikely a jury would find he was trying to malign them," Berlik said.

Moreover, trevely’s review of Medialink contained a claim saying, “It’s very likely that they are paying for reviews.” Berlik explained that because trevely’s claim is one of opinion that he thinks to be “very likely” rather than a statement of fact, this statement should also not likely constitute defamation.

Scare tactics

Whether or not the law is on trevely’s side, the cease-and-desist letter was a pretty clear scare tactic, according to free speech attorney Paul Alan Levy with the Public Citizen Litigation Group. “The letter was so over the top that you have to think the lawyers were going out of their way to look like they’re filing a lawsuit,” Levy told Ars.

Levy noted that reviewers are safest when they “stick to the facts,” even if the review is negative.

What's more, Levy said, if online reviewers want to protect themselves from paying out-of-pocket expenses related to a defamation suit, they should consider purchasing homeowner's insurance. “If people are going to be active online, they ought to have libel coverage, which is a rider to a homeowner’s policy,” he said. “Generally speaking, an umbrella policy includes personal injury, and most policies do have defamation coverage.”

It might seem strange to need insurance before writing an online review, but consider this: if Mediabridge decides to follow through with its suit against trevely, and even if trevely prevails, he's still responsible for his own legal fees.

“Companies can bully consumers into taking down negative reviews," Berlik said, "since most people don’t want to get involved in a big lawsuit. So consumers are hurt by that."

96 Reader Comments

We live in such a litigious society. It is more than ridiculous. It's completely f-cking ridiculous beyond words. I am an avid Yelper, but while we're at it, f-ck yelp because I'm not elite, and I should be. JK. But... I received a letter in postcard form from the Los Angeles Clippers. I was a party to a class action lawsuit. Why??? Because I had received at least one unsolicited text message from the Clippers between February 16th 2009 and April 14th 2014. And somebody filed a class action lawsuit. I got either two tickets to an October exhibition game, or one ticket to an October exhibition game and $20 in gift credit to the Clippers store. Ridiculous eh? I think it's more of a promotion for the team rather than a lawsuit for textual harassment. Back to the point, people will sue OVER EVERYTHING! I MEAN EVERYTHING! Luckily I haven't been sued, yet!

The whole Medialink frenzy shouldn't have happened. The reviewer in question made no untruthful claims, he merely stated that the router was a actually manufactured by someone else, the reviews were most likely faked, and that there was a good possibility that media link was behind those fake reviews. The first 2 points are easily provable, the third point is not DISPROVABLE (he never said they were, only that there was a good possibility.)

This router performs like shit. The product was made by assholes, and the interface looks like mutated crap. You'd be a dumbass to buy this product.

Be as crass, lewd, and condescending as possible while never committing to a legally provable statement of asserted fact. If that's what companies want, give it to 'em. I'd dare say that a heap or reviews like that would be far more harmful to a company's rep given the common connotation of that verbiage. Yet, you can't sue for libel as those terms have no legal definition in fact, they're clearly opinion as they're totally unprovable.

What baffles me is why MediaBridge did this. I've ordered a few cables from them and I've gotten emails from them thanking me for the order, encouraging me to contact them if I have any issues. For $5 USB cables! They were good cables and I would have bought from them again.

So why would a company with such an attentive customer relations department go batshit crazy and ruin all their customer relations over one review? It makes no sense. So now they've lost the right to sell on Amazon and anyone paying attention will never buy from them again. Crazy...

What baffles me is why MediaBridge did this. I've ordered a few cables from them and I've gotten emails from them thanking me for the order, encouraging me to contact them if I have any issues. For $5 USB cables! They were good cables and I would have bought from them again.

So why would a company with such an attentive customer relations department go batshit crazy and ruin all their customer relations over one review? It makes no sense. So now they've lost the right to sell on Amazon and anyone paying attention will never buy from them again. Crazy...

Sometimes it's because the legal dept. acts without considering the consequences or benefits of their actions. I don't get that impression here, however, so it probably comes down to righteous(in their own mind) indignance. "Our product is great! they can't say that about us! Let's get our lawyer in here!"

—but some of your claims ultimately turn out to be incorrect or misleading.

That is jsut someone beign stupid and posting without knowledge in an uninformed manner to begin with. Either they didnt do their "homework" or they don't knwo what they are doing.

With tech products most of the time - the general public has no fucking clue what they are doing and do not bother to take the time to understand it. That is why we get morons asking about the broken "cup holder" on the front of the computer. Or they don't understand why a coomputer stops running after they've loaded it to capacity with pr0n. Or why it won't "turn on" after a power outage or they kicked the power cord without realizing it.

I've even had someone bring their dead and broken laptop - they just bought - to me and want me to fix it - turns out they didn't fucking charge the damned thing.

Point is - bash a bad product for its faults - be specific - that you attempted to have it resolved and the customer service was in fact bad.

[Why? Because the rights of an individual to be a asshat are trumped by the rights of society to not have to put up with that kind of crap.

I disagree 100%. Realize what you are saying here: You are basically saying free speech is only OK if you like what the person has to say or if you agree with it. but if it offends you because what he is saying makes him an "ass hat" then free speech goes down the toilet.

I'd much rather know those ass hats are up to than have them censored, the more you know about your enemies, the better you are off. Moreover, just who do you think you are to limit others people right to hear these ass hats?

The purpose of free speech isn't to indulge in narcissism, it's to ensure society can benefit from diverse opinions, even if some of those opinions aren't popular with its more influential members.

Some warped person might find it funny to yell fire in a movie theatre just because they can, but since there's no benefit to society whatsoever, doing so has nothing to do with free speech.

It might seem strange to need insurance before writing an online review, but consider this: if Mediabridge decides to follow through with its suit against trevely, and even if trevely prevails, he's still responsible for his own legal fees.

Thankfully, this doesn't apply in almost all jurisdictions outside of the United States. Countries operating under so-called "English rule" of attorney's fees (England, Canada, pretty much every Western democracy) have the "loser pays" system. I find it incredible that the US still clings to the "American rule" system, since individuals often have a financial incentive to settle court cases brought against them by deep-pocketed corporations, even when the individuals are innocent.

The whole article boils down to "homeowner insurance" for protection against being sued for online product reviews? Perhaps the author overlooked the REAL lesson in how to avoid getting sued: SOCIAL MEDIA.

I mean, this whole thing is an object lesson in how to shame companies for high-handed tactics which include the threat of a lawsuit (no one was actually sued in this case, after all). A company that has nothing but perfect scores is a major red flag in my book. Why? Because people, in general, are idiots and they're bound to be upset SOMETIME. If it's 100% positive, the company has either only been in business for fifteen seconds (not long enough to establish a track record) or they're doing what some do which is pay people to write positive reviews. Every company screws up. Even if they try to make it up to everyone, not everyone is going to be happy and will leave a negative review (there's no pleasing some people).

So in the end here, the author overlooked the biggest and obviously most successful tactic to avoid being sued - post the letters in social media and shaming the company for it. A company should have a thick skin and understand that some people will never be happy. Even if a reviewer is egregiously lying, if the company has good products/service, the other reviews will reflect that. This is why shaming makes a better tactical sense and why any company STUPID enough to try to sue someone for libel over a review in which other reviewers have input (like an Amazon review) deserves all the pain that comes their way.

Mediabridge learned the hard way that protecting its reputation doesn't involve nasty letters and threats of legal action. Had they simply ignored it, or gone the extra distance to try to provide in service what their customer thought their product lacked in quality, they would have come out ahead. With social media today, the attorney threatening tactics are becoming PR landmines that prudent companies go out of their way to avoid these days.

Realize what you are saying here: You are basically saying free speech is only OK if you like what the person has to say or if you agree with it. but if it offends you because what he is saying makes him an "ass hat" then free speech goes down the toilet.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not free speech. Just like pulling the fire alarm for fun isn't.

Neither is claiming "Mr. Smith killed a prostitute in 2008 but he was never found out!" if you're just making it up.

Nor saying "I'd give 50$ to the first one to shoot Mrs. Miller in the face!"

Or calling 911 and saying "There's a hostage situation at 742 Evergreen Terrace, the guys are armed and dangerous, shots have been fired - come quick" to get a laugh.

It's pretty simple, actually. Are you expressing ideas, opinions, thoughts? That's what the Founders had in mind when they crafted the 1st amendment. But if your words are just verbalized actions, if the whole reason your saying them is to hurt people, then you should at least try to explain that to a jury of your peers.

Free speech is not a licence to say whatever you want, and likewise not every speech that hurts somebody's feelings is illegal. Grey areas exist, as everywhere in life.

You SHOULD be able to yell fire anywhere the hell you want. Look, we either have free speech or we don't. Threats are one thing. But saying anything that doesn't call for violent action should not get you in so much legal trouble. Here is what people never seem to get: It's the crazy-batshit, white supremacist, holocaust deniers that need the most protection by freedom of speech. It should be up to the listener to know what to make of what they hear. Remember, when you censor someone's speech, all you are doing is denying people the right to listen to whatever crazy shit they might have to say.I'd much rather know what my enemies have to say than have them censored.And in the case of this reviewer, so what if he said what he did? That's his opinion and you can cross reference it with others. Even the most insane holocaust deniers might have something of value to say to go along with their delusion, and you might learn something useful from them. So again, it's the responsibility of the reader/listener to use the information wisely.I'll leave you with the best argument of what free speech really is, by Christopher Hitchens:

You're right, I should be able to yell "Fire!" and incite panic wherever I damn well please. Who cares if it's a crowded theater with one exit and people could get hurt trying to escape? Not my fucking problem, no sir. YOU CAN'T SILENCE ME, FASCISTS!

In that case however, I think the proper route to take is that the speech itself should be legal, but you should be liable for the consequences - medical bills, civil suits to cover "suffering", refunding the movie tickets, etc. Maybe treat the injuries as if you had personally inflicted them, e.g. assault charges.

Isn't that kind of like saying that you should be allowed to push someone off a cliff, but if they suffer injuries, you're responsible for them? Somehow, that doesn't seem right.

Isn't that exactly what the law currently is, though? If I'm with my friend at the park, and I push him off the cliff into the lake and he laughs the way down, then there's no crime. If he gets injured or killed, on the other hand, that's a criminal act that I am responsible for.

Intent and expected outcome matters a lot in legal cases. There's a lot of things you can do that are legal and illegal at different times, depending on the circumstances.

The whole article boils down to "homeowner insurance" for protection against being sued for online product reviews? Perhaps the author overlooked the REAL lesson in how to avoid getting sued: SOCIAL MEDIA.

I mean, this whole thing is an object lesson in how to shame companies for high-handed tactics which include the threat of a lawsuit (no one was actually sued in this case, after all). A company that has nothing but perfect scores is a major red flag in my book. Why? Because people, in general, are idiots and they're bound to be upset SOMETIME. If it's 100% positive, the company has either only been in business for fifteen seconds (not long enough to establish a track record) or they're doing what some do which is pay people to write positive reviews. Every company screws up. Even if they try to make it up to everyone, not everyone is going to be happy and will leave a negative review (there's no pleasing some people).

So in the end here, the author overlooked the biggest and obviously most successful tactic to avoid being sued - post the letters in social media and shaming the company for it. A company should have a thick skin and understand that some people will never be happy. Even if a reviewer is egregiously lying, if the company has good products/service, the other reviews will reflect that. This is why shaming makes a better tactical sense and why any company STUPID enough to try to sue someone for libel over a review in which other reviewers have input (like an Amazon review) deserves all the pain that comes their way.

Mediabridge learned the hard way that protecting its reputation doesn't involve nasty letters and threats of legal action. Had they simply ignored it, or gone the extra distance to try to provide in service what their customer thought their product lacked in quality, they would have come out ahead. With social media today, the attorney threatening tactics are becoming PR landmines that prudent companies go out of their way to avoid these days.

To be fair, no defamation rider on a homeowners insurance policy is going to do a thing to *prevent* you from being sued. What it can do is provide support legal support (either through the insurance company hiring representation for you, or reimbursing you the costs of representation) should a case be brought.

The father of one of Oscar Wilde's young male lovers had been haranguing Wilde publicly for "corrupting" his son and accusing WIlde of being homosexual. So Wilde sued him for libel. Unfortunately, Wilde WAS homosexual and WAS having an affair with the son. So Wilde lost on the clear legal principle that *truth* is a defense against libel! And what was worse, Wilde was then subsequently charged for his homosexuality, and sentenced to hard labor, which nearly killed him. Of course that was outrageous, but still, it bears keeping in mind when one acts!

[Why? Because the rights of an individual to be a asshat are trumped by the rights of society to not have to put up with that kind of crap.

I disagree 100%. Realize what you are saying here: You are basically saying free speech is only OK if you like what the person has to say or if you agree with it. but if it offends you because what he is saying makes him an "ass hat" then free speech goes down the toilet.

I'd much rather know those ass hats are up to than have them censored, the more you know about your enemies, the better you are off. Moreover, just who do you think you are to limit others people right to hear these ass hats?

Opinions are protected. They aren't slander, defamation, fraud, etc. Unpopular opinions are still protected, it's not about what I do or don't agree with. What's generally illegal is to knowingly spread harmful falsehoods. I don't see any problem there. If you want to persuade people of a point, do so with facts or with opinions, not with lies.

Although what is told in this article is true to a certain extent. It is of good conscous,that I add to the question what is the intent of generalizing 'Internet'- don't do this on the 'Internet'. If it was a consideration that laws were made match of the word in such a generalized functionality of the law/laws.

The reviewer was shopping at Amazon,the reviewer posted reviews at Amazon. The reviewer,and the seller are responsible for their participation to Amazon. It was not as though 'Internet',was represented by anything posted by this person. And it was not as if the Seller could not have simply participated within the same forum of discussion.

I dontbelieve the idea here,was actually a detail of publication. But that of communication. The extent of the 'Internet,was the 'communication on the 'review'. Was the communication said incorrect,or in error ? That may be certainly true,in whatever precept it was to involve.

Think that lawyers are genuienly disturbed by the precept of anything Internet,that is consitent to generalizing what is 'communicated'. Really have to see that there was only a review,at a web site,for a product that was retailing there.

Didn't involve me,or a lawyer,or anybody but those participating in that forum. That we could say we knew more,or less after reading the reviews about the product(s). A person speaking in a review is harmless. An lawyers would 'like'to provoke that 'Internet',is everything that is considered by them to be. IT isn't,THEY don't make the rules. Site owners,and participants do.

Those laws are for another day and age. Really have to consider bearings a little better.

Consider this .Its against the law to practice law in a state that you are not liscenced to do. But consider this,the federal government by law can practice whereever it wants to .

Sellers can certainly participate in their own products review forums. But why generalize 'Internet',when there is certainly enough specificity to convey correct objectives.

Probably difficult to do to say 'generally speaking' while using the Internet. But there is other rationale to consider,as that considered by 'Web Bloggers' etc,in that they 'web log'. Or 'Blog'. since that in and of itself is quite a contribution to recognizing what is trying to be as 'publication'. Where there is certainly reference to precedent,that nobody has detail of denoting by reading the several quotations within this article.

Their peril is certainly interesting. Libel law could be on the endangered species list however.

Edit: apologies if the reference (redit,and Amazon) appear to be erroneous.

[Why? Because the rights of an individual to be a asshat are trumped by the rights of society to not have to put up with that kind of crap.

I disagree 100%. Realize what you are saying here: You are basically saying free speech is only OK if you like what the person has to say or if you agree with it. but if it offends you because what he is saying makes him an "ass hat" then free speech goes down the toilet.

I'd much rather know those ass hats are up to than have them censored, the more you know about your enemies, the better you are off. Moreover, just who do you think you are to limit others people right to hear these ass hats?

Opinions are protected. They aren't slander, defamation, fraud, etc. Unpopular opinions are still protected, it's not about what I do or don't agree with. What's generally illegal is to knowingly spread harmful falsehoods. I don't see any problem there. If you want to persuade people of a point, do so with facts or with opinions, not with lies.

If it is generally illegal to knowingly spread harmful falsehoods, then many of our presidents, corporate leaders and journalists would have been prosecuted. But yes, opinions, parody, and the like are proected while inciting riot, insurrection or directly spreading falsehoods about a private individual or business is not.

The whole Medialink frenzy shouldn't have happened. The reviewer in question made no untruthful claims, he merely stated that the router was a actually manufactured by someone else, the reviews were most likely faked, and that there was a good possibility that media link was behind those fake reviews. The first 2 points are easily provable, the third point is not DISPROVABLE (he never said they were, only that there was a good possibility.)

It's called Fair Comment. Saying that based on the given facts P, Q, and R, it's reasonable to conclude X, Y and Z, on some matter of public interest, is not usually considered slander, libel or defamation.

Of course, the actual law regarding slander, libel and defamation can vary considerably from one jurisdiction to the next...

[Why? Because the rights of an individual to be a asshat are trumped by the rights of society to not have to put up with that kind of crap.

I disagree 100%. Realize what you are saying here: You are basically saying free speech is only OK if you like what the person has to say or if you agree with it. but if it offends you because what he is saying makes him an "ass hat" then free speech goes down the toilet.

I'd much rather know those ass hats are up to than have them censored, the more you know about your enemies, the better you are off. Moreover, just who do you think you are to limit others people right to hear these ass hats?

Opinions are protected. They aren't slander, defamation, fraud, etc. Unpopular opinions are still protected, it's not about what I do or don't agree with. What's generally illegal is to knowingly spread harmful falsehoods. I don't see any problem there. If you want to persuade people of a point, do so with facts or with opinions, not with lies.

If it is generally illegal to knowingly spread harmful falsehoods, then many of our presidents, corporate leaders and journalists would have been prosecuted.!

Don't quite agree - politicians / business leaders / journalists etc. can and are prosecuted if they make the statement while they're not protected by some other jurisdiction (e.g. in many countries statements by a politician in parliament are subject to different laws).

The problem is the person suing needs to prove 1) they were harmed 2) what the other person said was untrue and 3) that they knew what they were saying was untrue. Thanks to plausible deniability it can be hard to prove that last one, though that's changed in the last 20 years thanks to emails.

You SHOULD be able to yell fire anywhere the hell you want. Look, we either have free speech or we don't. Threats are one thing. But saying anything that doesn't call for violent action should not get you in so much legal trouble. Here is what people never seem to get: It's the crazy-batshit, white supremacist, holocaust deniers that need the most protection by freedom of speech. It should be up to the listener to know what to make of what they hear. Remember, when you censor someone's speech, all you are doing is denying people the right to listen to whatever crazy shit they might have to say.I'd much rather know what my enemies have to say than have them censored.And in the case of this reviewer, so what if he said what he did? That's his opinion and you can cross reference it with others. Even the most insane holocaust deniers might have something of value to say to go along with their delusion, and you might learn something useful from them. So again, it's the responsibility of the reader/listener to use the information wisely.I'll leave you with the best argument of what free speech really is, by Christopher Hitchens:

You're right, I should be able to yell "Fire!" and incite panic wherever I damn well please. Who cares if it's a crowded theater with one exit and people could get hurt trying to escape? Not my fucking problem, no sir. YOU CAN'T SILENCE ME, FASCISTS!

In that case however, I think the proper route to take is that the speech itself should be legal, but you should be liable for the consequences - medical bills, civil suits to cover "suffering", refunding the movie tickets, etc. Maybe treat the injuries as if you had personally inflicted them, e.g. assault charges.

Isn't that kind of like saying that you should be allowed to push someone off a cliff, but if they suffer injuries, you're responsible for them? Somehow, that doesn't seem right.

You're totally free to push Superman off that cliff. How would you have known there was Kryptonite at the bottom? Oh, and also at the edge, and in increments of 10 feet down the cliffside...

Note: not an actual threat against Superman, neither am I confirming or denying any connection to a Batman-esque backup plan to take out a Superman controlled by cliff-loving tiny parasites.

I thought the best defense in reviews would be to mimic the method used by Penn & Teller: be even more subjective in descriptions of the reviewed. There's no need to suggest the company paid for 5-star reviews, merely point out the surprisingly high number of them for a relatively unknown company whose product just happens to share a FCC ID with another, cheaper, brand that might have a penchant for selling their goods for rebranding, you know...

Personally, I can't answer if I had a good day without 3 to 7 qualifications, depending.

Parody is protected under the First Amendment. Unless Amazon (or the other venue) came out and made it against their terms of service, you can. But the parody has to be clear.

For example, if you review Milk, 7 gallon, America's Greatest Dairy, SKU 393294376 and opened with "What to do with expired milk?" you'd be in questionable territory because you're essentially casting reasonable aspersions over the product.

If Amazon made it against their Terms of Service, it stops being protected speech and they can remove your parody and ban you from the site, but legal action is...probably beyond the pale at that juncture.

Realize what you are saying here: You are basically saying free speech is only OK if you like what the person has to say or if you agree with it. but if it offends you because what he is saying makes him an "ass hat" then free speech goes down the toilet.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not free speech....

It might actually might be "free speech", it might even considered to be a civic duty if the theater is actually on fire.Context matters, that is why you might have to take it to court.

So I often get emails from monoprice, bestbuy, newegg, etc to write reviews of products I purchase online from them. Shouldn't these companies who benefit from the reviews users write on their site have some kind of protection in place for users if they are going to solicit reviews?

So I often get emails from monoprice, bestbuy, newegg, etc to write reviews of products I purchase online from them. Shouldn't these companies who benefit from the reviews users write on their site have some kind of protection in place for users if they are going to solicit reviews?

If your review is honest, you have minimal need for protection. If it's dishonest, they shouldn't protect you. I would think they would not want to put themselves in the middle and have to figure out whether you were honest or not.

How about a companion article from people who are selling online and have their product and/or reputation defamed by a malicious reviewer? What are your legal recourses if apparently a letter requesting a review be amended/be taken down is against the ideologies of most Ars Readers?

Also use a lot of subjective descriptions. "This product did not perform up to my expectations", the company would be hard pressed to prove in court that you lied about what your original expectations were before making the purchase.

Exactly this.

You can also preface most of your reviews with "I believe..." and put whatever you want after. It isn't libel if you're stating your own personal beliefs.

yes. it is probably a good idea to qualify everything.

"i heard that some people are saying.."

say "a lot" instead of "most"

in this case. he should have said "it looks/seems like this is a re-branded router..."

the people who are convinced by your emotional reviews will ignore the qualifiers anyway, so you still win.

The best thing to do is to clearly state observations and keep things as simple as possible. The customer service was bad, state what it was that was, or was not, done. If the product did not work the way you wanted or expected it to, state exactly what it was that didn't work.

In the rare times that I've written as objectively and professionally as possible, the results have been better than being subjective (and in other cases, it's wound the offending company up more!)

If your review is honest, you have minimal need for protection. If it's dishonest, they shouldn't protect you. I would think they would not want to put themselves in the middle and have to figure out whether you were honest or not.

Which would be fine if only dishonest reviews were the ones being targeted. Which sadly isn't the case.

Any negative review can be a target so if the stores want purchasers to contribute reviews there should be measures in place to protect the users from backlash if the purchaser didn't like the product and wrote a negative review.

Also use a lot of subjective descriptions. "This product did not perform up to my expectations", the company would be hard pressed to prove in court that you lied about what your original expectations were before making the purchase.

Exactly this.

You can also preface most of your reviews with "I believe..." and put whatever you want after. It isn't libel if you're stating your own personal beliefs.

Adding the "I believe..." prefix to a potentially defaming statement doesn't magically alter message that people could reasonably expect to take away from the statement. Don't expect a court to see the following two statements as being distinct from one another:

"Joe Silver has been accepting kickbacks from third-parties to hawk their products in the articles he writes, meaning he'll never write anything bad about x company. I also believe Joe to be the man who clogged-up my toilet at a party last Christmas."

"I believe Joe Silver has been accepting kickbacks from third-parties to hawk their products in the articles he writes, meaning he'll never write anything bad about x company. I also believe Joe to be the man who clogged-up my toilet at a party last Christmas."

It helps, but it's not to be taken as carte blanche to express all personal beliefs. Either way the sentiment expressed could be legally actionable. In fact in the UK he could probably have me publicly executed by the Queen's own guardsmen. Got to love our libel law.

Also use a lot of subjective descriptions. "This product did not perform up to my expectations", the company would be hard pressed to prove in court that you lied about what your original expectations were before making the purchase.

Exactly this.

You can also preface most of your reviews with "I believe..." and put whatever you want after. It isn't libel if you're stating your own personal beliefs.

It would be difficult to prove, but what if you stated I beleive X, where you know X to be untrue?

Berlik explained that because trevely’s claim is one of opinion that he thinks to be “very likely” rather than a statement of fact, this statement should also not likely constitute defamation.

This strikes me as the key point (along with the part about not making shit up of course). The point of your review should be to provide your factual but subjective experience with the product, not some sort of definitive statement about the objective moral existence of the company or product. This doesn't mean you can't use colorful language, or even some hyperbole, but it does mean you shouldn't extrapolate from your experience to some sort of absolute statement of evil.

It's the difference between saying:

"Despite the fact that I tried really hard to follow the directions, I thought they were poorly written and no matter what I did, I was never able to connect any of my devices to this crappy router".

and

"This router was clearly made by slaves in a coal mine in China and the company is just out to steal your money by selling you a non-functional device. They are crooks and probably pedophiles."

... and who would have thought that Ars is read anywhere beyond the remit of United States law? Writing from the land where most litigants choose to use our wonderful libel laws to full effect (UK).

Curious though, does the advice in this article not also apply to UK libel law? Is the law framed in such a way as to make it difficult to criticize anything or anyone seriously? I would have a hard time believing that...

In comments on the earlier ars article about this situation, someone from the UK said something to the effect that truth is no defense there for a libel claim.

I was curious too, so decided to look this up. The truth is indeed a defence. However, the claimant doesn't have to prove that the statement was false, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

Also use a lot of subjective descriptions. "This product did not perform up to my expectations", the company would be hard pressed to prove in court that you lied about what your original expectations were before making the purchase.

Exactly this.

You can also preface most of your reviews with "I believe..." and put whatever you want after. It isn't libel if you're stating your own personal beliefs.

It would be difficult to prove, but what if you stated I beleive X, where you know X to be untrue?

Burden of proof falls on the company to bring undeniable evidence of such a lie.

Sadly, the truth will not protect you from thuggish and censorious legal threats like the one from Mediastink. Such companies try to intimidate and bully; their tactics are the legal equivalent of threatening to take you out in the alley and "teach you a lesson."

The truth might not even protect you from an actual suit. Thugs and bullies know that defending such a suit will likely cost you tens of thousands of dollars or even more. Just as such a company will spend many thousand dollars on advertising, they might spend several thousand to "teach you a lesson." They'll try to sue you someplace other than where you live to increase your cost and pain, too.

The other issue is that of venue. If Mediastink sues me in California and I live in Georgia, well, I have to hire a lawyer in California, and maybe even make several trips there. Even if the California court eventually determines that it does not have jurisdiction over me, getting such a ruling has cost me big bucks. I'm not sure what the answer to that one is; I'm not a lawyer nor student of public policy, but somehow we need more "loser pays" in circumstances like that.

Edit: Although this link is in Ken White's post, it is worth repeating. The Public Participation Project has a list of state anti-SLAPP laws. You can check on your own state with just a click.

And also... Mediastink is a fictitious company which has absolutely no connection with any actual company that sells rebranded Tenda routers and then lies about it in thuggish and censorious legal threats.

I have written particularly scathing one star reviews on a couple of occasions, but I have not yet been served with any lawsuits. I've also drafted over-the-top negative reviews in anger, and then come back to them later and realized that posting such a screed would probably be a bad idea -- not because they were untrue; rather, because I simply couldn't offer any concrete proof of my claim. So Joe's advice to be honest is absolutely critical... but I would add to that: make sure you can back up your claims, too. All the rest of this conversation is just noise... if you've told the truth and can back it up, then it's pretty difficult to see how someone could possibly sue you.